Did she admit to have done it because it is certain that it really happened? And all evidence were in her disfavor? Or she was seemingly the only one present at the time when it happened? And so she concluded that it was logical that it was her? Or did she remember something while she was questioned?

Was she simply at the wrong place at the wrong time? Or did somebody frame her?

Questionable questioning (duh) methods relevant? Did she give in due to the pressure during the questioning?

Did she admit to be guilty to protect somebody else? Or to get an alibi for something worse?

Did she admit to have done it because it is certain that it really happened? Yope or yes-ishAnd all evidence were in her disfavor? Yes-ishOr she was seemingly the only one present at the time when it happened? This, too, but there's moreAnd so she concluded that it was logical that it was her? There's a little more to this story- in other words, there could have been more people involved, and she would have come to the same conclusionOr did she remember something while she was questioned? No, and this is relevant

Was she simply at the wrong place at the wrong time? I don't know- irrelevant to the puzzleOr did somebody frame her? Probably not or irrelevant to the puzzle

Questionable questioning (duh) methods relevant? I think soDid she give in due to the pressure during the questioning? Yope

Did she admit to be guilty to protect somebody else? NoOr to get an alibi for something worse? No

PotatoFifth Amendment relevant? Only slightly- I wouldn't focus on this

Shezdid she not remember because she was drunk? FA- she was not drunk did she had to admit it because it was caught on camera? No

speeding? No

GalfiskHad she been driving? Yes Did she come to the conclusion that she was guilty because of a question? partly this Because of an object? yope-ishly this A situation? and yes-ishly this Had she been driving? Was she accused of driving? She had been driving.

Did she suffer from a relevant medical condition? Is anyone else relevant (apart from her and the investigators)? Was she injured in a car accident? Was she forced to "admit" her guilt? If so: by blunt force? by intoxication with a substance? by threatening her with some negative repercussions? Relevant where the investigation took place?

Did she suffer from a relevant medical condition? Yes Is anyone else relevant (apart from her and the investigators)? Not really Was she injured in a car accident? Yes (this is the relevant medical condition) Was she forced to "admit" her guilt? No, or at least, not in this sense If so: by blunt force? by intoxication with a substance? by threatening her with some negative repercussions? Nothing like this Relevant where the investigation took place? Yes-ish or yope

BalinDid she have amnesia? Which is why she couldn't remember committing the offense? see below

Shezdid the injury she received in the accident cause her to forget what happened? Yes... concussion? ...yes... brain damage? ...yes... Balin's amnesia? ...and yes again. A concussion is a traumatic brain injury that, while not always severe or life threatening, can cause short-term amnesia. Usually the person forgets the events just before and/or just after the injury occurred.

dangerous driving? I believe the US equivalent is "reckless driving", and it wasn't this. It was more specific. driving without due care and attention? You know, I'm not sure there is a British equivalent. The US citation was more specific, although it is possible that a case could be made for driving without due care and attention.

RECAP: Puzzle statement: A teenage girl in the US received a citation for an offense she had no memory of committing. But when questioned, she admitted that she had to be guilty.

The girl's lapse in memory can be attributed to a concussion that occurred as a result of a car accident. She had been driving. She was not drunk and in fact had not been drinking at all. No drugs, prescription or otherwise, are involved. She had not been hypnotised.

The citation was related to driving, but not drinking. She had not run a red light, sped, driven too slow, or hit another car. She had not crossed into oncoming traffic (although the same citation could have been issued in that situation) or driven the wrong way down a one-way street. The accident was deemed the legal responsibility of the driver, although this could be debated.

Because of the specific wording of the citation as it applied to the situation that occurred in this puzzle, I am not sure that it could have happened in exactly this way in the UK. I am not overly familiar with traffic laws.

She was not physically forced to admit her guilt. Questionable questioning (I like the term) may have played a role. The evidence (which involved an object/situation) seemed to be in her disfavor. Location of questioning is somewhat relevant.

Let me know if I left anything out or have made any mistakes.

HINT: Finding out more about the accident itself would probably help you figure out the citation. If it becomes too much trouble, I will spoyle that detail, but I think the puzzle would end very quickly after that.

Did she cross the center line? No Change lanes illegally? Yope; the citation was "Failure to Maintain a Lane" Turn signal relevant/ Turning? No-ishWas the offense related to her car itself? Like a burned-out taillight or expired registration? No

Did she only commit the violation during/because of the accident? For instance, she skidded out of control and was cited for that? Yes-ish. The only thing that remains- why did she have to admit that she was guilty when questioned?

This one is mostly done. If anyone would like to finish it up, feel free to do so. Otherwise, I'll likely spoyle by this weekend.

Were there tire tracks? Yes, but mostly irrelevant. Discovering more about the scene of the accident is definitely a good idea, though.

Shez

was she the only person able to drive that vehicle? was it specially adapted? No to both

when she admitted responsibility had she remembered the incident or was it something else which made her realise she had to be guilty? It was something else- remember, it was something about the situation and the questioning that made her admit guilt. To this day, she has no memory of the actual accident.

did the incident take place somewhere only she could be? like hers wa the only car on an island? No, but this is much more interesting than the actual ending!

or in a car park which she'd entered using a security pass? No, but again, a great idea

um - after the accident her car was smashed up and only she had the keys?

she had a big bump on her head from the accident?

she'd been removed from the car by the emergency services?

Yes to all but the last one (which is "no"). I should clarify- there was never any question that she had been involved in the accident or that she had been the driver.

A citation was issued for "Failure to Maintain a Lane" only after she admitted she was guilty of this crime. With no recording of the accident, no witnesses, and no memory of the event, why would she admit that she was guilty of any crime?

Would she have been in bigger trouble if she'd said she was not guilty? She probably wouldn't have gotten in more trouble, but she might have given the impression that she was either stupid, sarcastic, or more seriously impaired.

In the other lane? Off the road? This! Having crossed lanes to get off the road? But not this

**********SPOILER**********

When I was a teenager, I was driving home from visiting relatives. I remember feeling very afraid and inhaling sharply (I think I was going to scream). But I don't remember what frightened me.

Then everything was quiet and still. My car was on, and I was in the driver's seat, but I couldn't see the headlights through the windshield. Through the driver's window, I could see dirt and realized my car was not upright. I braced myself against the window and unfastened my safety belt. I immediately fell forward over the wheel- I had actually been upside down with the front end of my car buried in the soft dirt at the side of the road.

Then I was wandering down the road. How had I gotten out of the car? I couldn't remember.

Then I was lying down. There were a lot of people around, and I realized I was strapped to a stretcher. There were paramedics arguing with a police officer and there were flashing lights and a lady was crying on the phone with my mother. At this point, my mind began to clear. I could finally make sense of bits and pieces of the paramedic's argument:

"You can't talk to her right now. She has a head injury. She's been babbling about popcorn." (Popcorn?!) The officer said something about obstruction of justice, and the paramedic stepped aside. The following is an approximation of the conversation that took place between the officer and myself.

Officer: "Tell me about the accident." Me: "Hm? Oh, I don't know anything about it." Officer: "Were you driving?" Me: "Yes, sir." Officer: "Then you know about it. Were you drinking? Doing drugs?" Me: "No, sir." Officer: "You must have been speeding, then?" Me: "No, sir, I remember that much." Officer: "Was there anyone else on the road? Why did you run off the road?" Me: "I don't know. I can't remember." Officer: "If you don't remember anyone else being around, then you must be legally at fault for the accident. I'm going to have to write you a citation." Me: "For what?" Officer: (long pause and then) "Hey, is your vehicle in its proper lane?" I looked at the twisted, mangled metal that used to be my car; it was several feet from the road. "No, sir, it is not." Officer: "Then you're guilty of failure to maintain a lane, aren't you?" Me: "I suppose I am."

As far as anyone can tell, an animal probably darted out in front of me. Judging by the tire tracks, I was told that I had swerved, as though trying to avoid hitting something or someone.

Failure to Maintain a Lane is the citation usually given to people who change lanes improperly or weave back and forth out of their lanes. I have never heard of anyone getting that citation in the same manner I did.

The "Fifth Amendment" comes into play because Miranda Rights (including the right to remain silent when questioned by a police officer- probably a good idea in my case, had I been thinking clearly) are partially based on the Fifth Amendment, which prevents one from incriminating oneself when acting as a witness.

They do. *nods firmly* Seriously, they do. I've had cheeseburgers after my seizures sometimes and they've helped a LOT. Maybe it's the protein? or the cheese? or both? I have no idea, but they work, so that's good.

Add Your Message Here

Post:

Username:

Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.